Bush Demonstrates Misunderstanding of Terrorist Threat
Bush Demonstrates Misunderstanding of Terrorist Threat
In his radio address today, President Bush once again demonstrated he does not have an understanding of the threat we face:
Bush: “[The terrorists] believe that with a few hard blows, and the televised repetition of horrific images of violence, they can force us to retreat.” [Radio address, 7/9/05]
That’s not in fact what Bin Laden and company believe, and that is not their modus operandi. The terrorists are willing to fight over the long-term and have repeatedly demonstrated their patience. As Michael Scheuer, former chief bin Laden tracker at the CIA, said, “[B]in Laden has been at this now for the better part of 20 years; he’s a patient man.” [Newshour, 12/16/04]
Bush quoted bin Laden in his June 28th speech on Iraq. Had he read the rest of bin Laden’s message to the Iraqi people, he would have come across this statement:
Bin Laden: “No doubt, you recall the words of the conceited one who said ‘I will settle the battle in six days or seven weeks.’ You recall Bush’s words, when he said ‘the major operations are over,’ just a few weeks after the beginning of the war. They think that the people in front of them are sheep and that the whole thing is a picnic in Panama. They did not know that the lions of Al-Shara and Khiffan [locations in Arabic literature] are in the field, carrying their souls on the palms of their hands. They are trained on patience and endurance. Their victory is joy and their death is martyrdom.”
Bush’s prescription for winning remains the same:
Bush: “In the face of such adversaries, there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy, and we will fight until the enemy is defeated.” [Radio address, 7/9/05]
If Bush is operating under the mistaken impression that the terrorists just want to strike “a few hard blows” and that we must simply “stay the course,” then clearly the violence will only intensify over time. When’s the last time you heard Bush talk about winning “hearts and minds”? And where’s the strategy for that?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
As usual, Bush’s disconnect from the reality-based communtiy seriously impairs his ability to not put his foot in his mouth. But no doubt, the simple act of him opening his mouth and uttering phrases will appease, tittilate and reassure the loyal sheep that cling to his every whim (and who have been posting voraciously here as of late).
As always, we of the reality-based community appreciate TP’s vigilant quest to shed light in the places of darkness, and to use cited sources to allow the readers to see for themselves (if they are willing to) the veracity of the claims made here.
Keep up the good work.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:37 amThis administration listens to no one except their own rambling ideology. History will mark them as being wrong on many counts including Iraq and terrorism. However, when those marks are recorded, there will still be no recognition of responsibility or fault in judgement or deed on the part of the neocon reich.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:42 am“As always, we of the reality-based community appreciate TP’s vigilant quest to shed light in the places of darkness,”
Gee nice words. But where are your solutions? All I see on this site is whining, pissing and moaning and criticism of the current administration. You have no agenda and that is why the
July 9th, 2005 at 9:59 ampeople of this country are fed up with you on election day. Your elitist attitudes will continue to assure the conservatives control the White House, Senate, Congress and absolutely the Supreme Court(at least another 10 years). Keep up the good work.
Karl-
Typical…
Why should we offer solutions? As Lee “Scratch” Perry sings:
The one who sh1ts the road won’t remember it,
But the one who cleans the sh1t will remember it.
You have taken a huge dump in the middle of the road, so why should we clean it up for you? So you can forget that you defecated in the first place? So we can be burdened with cleaning up your feces?
I don’t think so.
There is nothing elitist about not wanting to clean up somebody else’s sh1t. And I’d like to see you not grumble when I take a crap on your doorstep and expect you to clean it up for me.
But as always, your ability to attempt to turn reason on its head is an admirable effort. Unfortunately, you won’t find your typical brand of surrealist conservatives here that will accept your counterintuitive BS, and neither will we clean up after it for you.
Now run along and play on Captain’s Quarters…
July 9th, 2005 at 10:09 amOK, Karl – here’s proof you’re doing a great job – from the oh-so-librul MSNBC:
Taliban claims to kill Navy SEAL (I thought we won Afghanistan?)
London bombings full report – (I thought we were fighting them there?)
Italy: Iraq troop pullout to start in Sept. (Coalition of the willing?)
there’s more, but I’d hate to be the one to burst your bubble.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:13 amPlease don’t blame the liberals for whining, when the neo-cons are stomping all over the world with the corporate bulldozer war machine. This has been growing for the last 25 years, and it’s reaching a boiling point.
Where’s the voice of reason from the Arab world? Where are the real leaders? I don’t want to whine, I want to fix this mess. I don’t see any solutions from the white house!
I imagine that the hearts and minds of the world are pretty sick of hearing “stay the course”.. If I lived in the middle east, to me that would mean “Coming soon to your hood: destruction and halliburton.”
July 9th, 2005 at 10:29 amYou have no agenda and that is why the people of this country are fed up with you on election day. Your elitist attitudes will continue to assure the conservatives control the White House, Senate, Congress and absolutely the Supreme Court(at least another 10 years). Keep up the good work.
This meme is stale. Agenda: Removing the garbage.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:30 amI don’t want to whine, I want to fix this mess.
Don’t be so quick to clean up elephant sh1t…let the circus performers that keep company with the elephant clean it up themselves.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:35 amStill no solutions boys….. your credentials are intact BS, MS, PHD.. yada, yada, yada. I was wrong about you not having an agenda. It seems the agenda is to present yourselves as intellectuals on a mission to show everything wrong with this administration without exposing your lack of original thoughts or solutions. Keep up the good work.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:36 amThis administration needs no help form us demonstrating incompetence. Sorry you don’t cotton t our solutions. We never thought much of your “ideas”. By 2006-8, the American people will have decided a change is as good as a rest.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:42 amKarl-
I’ll tell you what is elitist: Taking a huge sh1t on the world and expecting someone else to clean it up for you.
I repeat – we will NOT clean up after YOUR sh1t. It is NOT going to happen. And trying to goad is into feeling guilty, petty or unpatriotic about not wanting to clean up YOUR sh1t isn’t going to make it happen.
So go get a mop, roll up your sleeves and get to work.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:52 amDad, thanks for letting me use the car last night. Sorry I got drunk and crashed into that police car. When are you going to fix it so I can borrow it again?
July 9th, 2005 at 10:57 amIf Bush or any of his true believers had ever read a newspaper or a book, they might have learned that Osama and his armies fought the Soviets in Afghanistan for a DECADE (with American training, money and arms)! Oh, and they beat the mighty Soviets (not unlike the ‘Nam?). It is only the American who has the six-minute attention span. War in the mountains is all these people know.
Talk about misunderestimating an enemy. It’s criminal. Especially when your CIA created him.
They hate your freedoms alright – freedom from being “bombed back to the stone age” by a hyper-aggressive, mass murdering regime of sick, sociopathic resource thieves.
Just because some in the Democratic party cannot bring themselves to cross their corporate masters and come up with a solution, does not mean that they represent the whole progressive movement. This is bigger than any political party – and it cannot be stopped. Critical mass……
July 9th, 2005 at 11:10 amPoint, set and match.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:10 amOf course, liberals are free from blame. Just read Sayyid Qutb in “Milestones” to understand how much the jihadist mentality does not touch Democrats…..sarcasm off.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:16 amStrathmore-
Oh I agree 100%. Republicans as the minority influence in the House, Senate and White House for over half a decade now certainly cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of a situation created by Democrats.
Sarcasm off.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:20 amAnd it is also blatant ignorane to push the thought that the bombings are a direct result from Iraq and Afghanistan participation by UK…this takes into account no consideration of fatwas issued by Omar Bakri and al Masri re the covenant of peace being broken by London due to the anti-terrorism legislation enacted, which permitted the statement of a “house of war” being the current state. Also, they were quite upset that good old al Masri is standing trial. To break down and say that this administration does not undertand the nature of the “terrorist” threat, and then to create a pure causal relationship merely to foreign policy is in and of itself a narrow and ignorant focus. But, hey, let’s listen to Micheal Scheurer, he was so successful at his job, catching ibn Laden or was it because Clinton tied his hands?
July 9th, 2005 at 11:22 amJohn S…. I understand how much Republicans have also created the problem, but Dems hands are far from free of blame (see bombing Afghanistan, bombing Iraq, sanctions, Jimmy Carter signing Presidential Directive to fund the mujahaddin in total secrecy)….but of course, political ideology will stand against facts
July 9th, 2005 at 11:25 amAmericans of both parties have been causing shit in the world for decades. The only people who do not understand this is Americans. I am not for one party and against another. They are both hopelessly broken. Time for an alternative or serious party reform. That means voting out ALL the criminals in politics, Repub or Dem (or whatever). That includes all those flip-flopping, mealy-mouthed patronizing parasites who are not doing their jobs for the PEOPLE! Corporations are not people (yet). If they are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem. There is no middle ground.
Stop this football game mentality of “my team over yours, no matter what the cost”. We are all losing and the fat rich pigs are winning. It is a CLASS WAR! Your country is being ripped off by the corporate thieves to the tune of BILLIONS. Let me spell it out – H-A-L-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N!
Bush as a regular guy…only an American would believe that. Here’s a helpful hint – Take everything they say and apply the opposite meaning – then you will have the truth.
Try this for starters, “We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”
Then this, “Remember, prior to Sept. 11 we thought oceans could protect us.” How soon they forget Pearl Harbour or the 1993 WTC bombing.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:11 pmWow nice disconnect. You now are claiming that the Bombing in London was NOT connected to the UK’s involvment in Iraq??
I do agree that the problems in the Middle east have been created by both parties, however Jimmy Carter didn’t make the decision to invade Iraq. The U.S. has had a long history of supporting some nasty people as long as they barked when told. (Picture Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussien)(or selling the shah of Iran U.S. military equipment)
antipathy and anger from the middle east towards the western world goes back so many generations its almost ingrained into the middle eastern psyche.The actions of the U.S. and other governments since the end of WW1 have not helped matters much.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:19 pmPoint, set and match, indeed.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:28 pmTwenty, you’ve got it, I’m with ya.
You have a time machine Strath? Because if you don’t, I’d suggest you quit bitching about past Dems. (WAY PAST) and focus on the F’d up situation NOW! Quit trying to confuse the issue at hand with your crying about Clinton, Carter, etc. at sites like this one, when its obvious that you can’t handle the cognitive dissonance going on in the Repub. party and within your own head.
If you want solutions, here’s a start. Don’t continue failed strategies such as BushCo has. Admit you and BushCo don’t get the problem at hand in the first place, beyond face value. Get off the high horse and perhaps you’ll get a better look at the problem. How’s that for a start?
Don’t bother responding, just get to work.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:35 pmAmen #20!
July 9th, 2005 at 12:39 pmAmen #19 as well!
July 9th, 2005 at 12:40 pm“Bin Laden: “No doubt, you recall the words of the conceited one who said ‘I will settle the battle in six days or seven weeks.’ You recall Bush’s words, when he said ‘the major operations are over,’ just a few weeks after the beginning of the war. They think that the people in front of them are sheep and that the whole thing is a picnic in Panama. They did not know that the lions of Al-Shara and Khiffan [locations in Arabic literature] are in the field, carrying their souls on the palms of their hands. They are trained on patience and endurance. Their victory is joy and their death is martyrdom.â€?”
Sounds a lot like Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:52 pm“Why should we offer solutions?”
John S. would clearly rather be part of the problem.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:53 pmOf course it is part of the terrorists’ strategy that with repeated hits they can drive us to retreat. Only a complete fool, like Faiz evidently, would argue otherwise.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:56 pmNeed your diapers changed again today, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 12:57 pm“Need your diapers changed again today, ED?”
That is exactly the kind of intellectual output we expect from the left today.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:05 pmDish it but dn’t want to take it, eh ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 1:07 pmYo Editors, it’s Bush that said we only need to withstand a few hard blows. This post was arguing that it’s a long-term fight. Bush apparently thinks it’s just about staying the course and showing our manhood. I guess you agree.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:07 pmYou liberals have no idea how to defend a nation. We’re winning in Iraq and we’re winning in Afghanistan but it’s a tough fight. We can either let them kill us or we can kill them — it’s that simple.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:10 pm“it’s Bush that said we only need to withstand a few hard blows.”
Bush has never said such a thing.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:11 pmA rash develops when you sit in your own mess while refusing to change it or letting someone else change it for you.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:11 pm“Dish it but dn’t want to take it, eh ED?”
That’s pretty juvenile too.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:12 pmNow we have to change your mess AND take care of your rash as well. What next?
July 9th, 2005 at 1:13 pm#33,
If its that simple, why can’t you do it? Don’t blame liberals for your own ineptitude.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:16 pm#32 rather
July 9th, 2005 at 1:17 pmI know you Editors have a short-term memory. Maybe not Bush, but basically everyone he hired/allied himself with said it was going to be quick.
Cheney predicted any war with Iraq would end “relatively quickly,” defining that as “weeks, not months.”
“It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration official who serves on a Pentagon advisory board, said in a Washington Post column in February that the war would be “a cakewalk.”
Richard Perle, who chaired that board until last week, predicted in July that support for Saddam, even within the Iraqi military, would “collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder.”
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: “The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator.”
Vice President Cheney, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.” He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not “put up such a struggle” and that even “significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside.”
July 9th, 2005 at 1:21 pm“it’s Bush that said we only need to withstand a few hard blows.â€? – I believe that was a GannonGuckert quote.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:22 pm“it’s Bush that said we only need to withstand a few hard blows.�
Quit splitting hairs, it fits the context of what he said in this morning’s address:
Bush: “[The terrorists] believe that with a few hard blows, and the televised repetition of horrific images of violence, they can force us to retreat.� [Radio address, 7/9/05]
Try again.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:32 pmOh yea!, I see my little children from the “Editors” are on again today. Oh you little anonymous devils you!
Oh to look at your web page is to laugh so heartily. Wow, we took others writers and posted them for everybody to see. Wow, your so neat.
Boys, have you ever been in the armed services? Have you ever served your government in a civil capacity?
Can you actually write more than two sentences and elaborate on any issues? Quick little jabs don’t really solve too much.
I have already realized that you don’t actually read very much. Here is a little advice; read a little more. Like I said before, it really helps your vocabulary skills.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:44 pm“You liberals have no idea how to defend a nation. We’re winning in Iraq and we’re winning in Afghanistan but it’s a tough fight. We can either let them kill us or we can kill them  it’s that simple.”
That is exactly the kind of intellectual output we expect from the right today.
Uh loser, it’s not that simple. It’s more complicated than your little red, white and blue brain could ever comprehend.
Let me help you with the big word – http://www.onelook.com/?w=comprehend&ls=a
Oh yah – the “liberal” label as derogatory is a joke, especially to Canadians. LOL!
July 9th, 2005 at 1:57 pm“We’re winning in Iraq and we’re winning in Afghanistan but it’s a tough fight. We can either let them kill us or we can kill them  it’s that simple.â€?
Sounds like an Al’Queda recruitment banner statement to me.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:04 pm“Quit splitting hairs, it fits the context of what he said in this morning’s address:”
Not at all. Your poor reading comprehension skills are not the president’s problem or my problem.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:08 pmMark,
July 9th, 2005 at 2:10 pmI can live with the fact you don’t like the site. Really. *L*
Ted has tried to switch the topic from al Qaeda to predictions about Iraq. I thought you lefties always say there’s no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Have you now dropped that lie? *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 2:11 pmI wasn’t the one posited the lie that there was a link. You guys did.
So editors, the terrorists just want us to retreat after delivered a few hard blows?
July 9th, 2005 at 2:17 pmThe horrible events in London serve to underscore the absurdity of current administration policies, and the fact that the right is spinning the attacks as a net POSITIVE (e.g., Brit Hume’s comments indicating they had make bonds a ‘must buy’) are both insane and inhuman.
related: http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
July 9th, 2005 at 2:23 pmWell, Bush can’t very well say the terrorists want to destroy us with a thousand cuts and trillions in debts, because that is exactly what we are all feeling right now. It wouldn’t be good for morale to see how much damage has actually been inflicted from a country we chose not to invade. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts those terrorists did not come from Iraq. Well, maybe they went there to procure loose high explosives.
I really like the Editors (sic) latest line of argument. The not-precisely-what-he-said defense.
This is why I’m not smart enough to be a Bush Booster because when someone tells me the enemy thinks they can win with a few hard blows, I think we only need to withstand a few hard blows. How silly of me to think that!
When someone announces the end of major operations and tells me we have prevailed, I think oh good we won. Oh how wrong I was!
And when someone says “Mushroom Cloud” I think we’re invading to stop the nukes. Boy is my face red!
But now I see how I must not deviate from what precisely was said. Because if you say it right, for example 2/3 of known al Qaeda leaders captured or killed, it is true. But if you misspeak and say we wiped out 2/3 of al Qaeda, it becomes a lie. God forbid you should take that to mean al Qaeda is 1/3 the size it was before.
So come on people, Karl Rove puts a lot of effort into the wording, don’t screw it up!
July 9th, 2005 at 2:29 pm“You liberals have no idea how to defend a nation. We’re winning in Iraq and we’re winning in Afghanistan but it’s a tough fight. We can either let them kill us or we can kill them  it’s that simple.�
So I guess you, Dubya, and the most insulated 51% of the country are smart and the whole rest of the world is stupid.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pmNice to see that windbag, Editors, is back on the prowl…
July 9th, 2005 at 2:33 pm“and the fact that the right is spinning the attacks as a net POSITIVE”
That’s complete nonsense.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:34 pmTed – There was a link. That is a fact.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:35 pmJohn S. would clearly rather be part of the problem.
How many times do I have to say it…clean up your OWN sh1t, Ed.
I am not on this Earth to clean up after all the sh1t that you and your ilk have polluted the desert with (as if it were a giant litterbox).
Learn how to clean up after your own sh1t, and maybe next time you’ll use a toilet instead of the Middle East.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:36 pm“How many times do I have to say it…clean up your OWN sh1t, Ed.”
So then you are not an American?
July 9th, 2005 at 2:37 pmGet the feeling Ed has watched too many John Wayne movies?
July 9th, 2005 at 2:37 pm“Get the feeling Ed has watched too many John Wayne movies?”
And yet another enlightened intellectual enters the fray. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 2:39 pmAnd yet another enlightened intellectual enters the fray.
Now that Ed has nothing of substance to say, he has fallen back on merely attacking the posters.
What a fantastic display of intellectual prowess.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:41 pmProve it ED. Privy to info not acquired by the 9/11 commission? Spill the beans and start singing.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:42 pmbetween 9-11 and Saddam? between Saddam and Osama? that’s the question. I wanna hear you say that.
You’re always going to find sketchy al qaeda links when you go back a decade. What’s surprising is that there are so few. Espcially when you compare the ties of Iraq to al Qaeda to the ties between al qaeda and Iran and Syria.
So back to the question editors. Are the terrorists just striking a few hard blows to just us to retreat? Don’t tell me you disagree with the president — gasp!
July 9th, 2005 at 2:45 pm#54 ED? #60 ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 2:45 pmSo then you are not an American?
I’m not a neocon…when you clowns started this mess, nobody cared what progressives thought. You guys ran your dog and pony show solo.
Now that the sh1t youu took has hit the fan, you want to know how WE are going to solve the problem YOU made?
Isn’t that convenient…
July 9th, 2005 at 2:46 pmGot to print Ed’s sputum out and save it for a future laugh.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:49 pm“Editors”, why won’t you answer my questions? Why are you so afraid to admit the truth?
Have you ever served your government in the armed forces or through civil service?
Lots of hot air, not much substance. I have told you where I stand. I have not served in the armed forces and I am not planning on it at this time. I have also not served in a civil government position, but that may very well change in the near future.
To serve your government in either capacity is a high and honorable calling to duty and service.
What are you going to do to help the efforts of our government and our country?
Please, please, please, answer my questions!
July 9th, 2005 at 2:53 pmED’s searching for witticisms…
July 9th, 2005 at 2:54 pmThe links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism are clear and well documented. No reasonable person denies them.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pmEd is the teenager that thanks Dad for letting him use the car, crashes into that police car, expects to get bailed out of jail, then berates his father a week later, “When are you going to fix the car so I can borrow it again?” Then accuses him of being unpatriotic.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pmGeorge Bush thinks that the terrorists/insurgents wants the US to retreat?
He is a fool and nothing else. The insurgents want the American forces to remain in Iraq. It is the most complete and least difficult of tasks to pick off Americans all day long with very little effort. The hapless American soldier has been deliberately placed in harm’s way. George Bush and the neocons could care less about American lives lost.
The insurgents are patient. But, they don’t want the Americans to leave. They want Americans to stay and fight and die. They know that they can outlast American will. It’s a no brainer.
The ADHD Bush Cabal won’t stand the test of time.
The insurgents know that. It is going to take more time than twelve years to defeat the insurgents. If there are ten thousand new recruits each year, you will have to kill ten thousand each year for the next twelve years just to keep their numbers the same as they are now. It’s an uphill battle. You’re going to need a lot more than 140 thousand troops over the next twelve years.
140 thousand troops in Iraq. 1700 dead, 12 thousand wounded. That’s a ten percent casualty rate. Plus, on top of it all, two hundred billion dollars frittered out the windows in the Green Zone.
The Bush Cabal doesn’t have any idea of what they are up against. They don’t have a clue.
The neocons have goofed.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:59 pmThe links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism are clear and well documented. No reasonable person denies them.
Nice attempt to merge the term terrorism with 9/11…
And if it is SO well documented, you should have no trouble citing evidence of Saddam’s ties to 9/11.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:00 pmAny patriot wants to help his country. Not whine, “you started it” like a spoiled child.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:01 pmJohn S. You really should take a remedial reading course. I didn’t say Iraq was involved in 9/11. The president didn’t say that. The war on terror isn’t all about 9/11.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:03 pmI didn’t say Iraq was involved in 9/11. The president didn’t say that. The war on terror isn’t all about 9/11.
I can’t stop laughing…you have thoroughly discredited yourself beyond recognition.
Congratulations.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:05 pmFolks, can any of you REALLY take this guy Editors seriously after the nonsense he posted in #72?
I know I can’t…
He might as well be arguing the world is flat.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:09 pmJohn S. It may surprise you to learn that your silly assessments of my credibility are of no value to me whatsoever. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:10 pm“Folks, can any of you REALLY take this guy Editors seriously after the nonsense he posted in #72?”
Now let’s all sit back, relax, and watch poor John try to explain how my comment was nonsense. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:11 pmThink Ed is getting a little dizzy in his circular arguments.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:12 pmWhat circular arguments, Norman? Are you hearing voices in your head again? *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:14 pmIt may surprise you to learn that your silly assessments of my credibility are of no value to me whatsoever.
The Church too was convinced of their intellevtual superiority, much like you are. Unfortunately, Galileo was correct.
Now let’s all sit back, relax, and watch poor John try to explain how my comment was nonsense.
If you REALLY think that Bush has never tied Saddam to 9/11, then you have drunk too much of the fool-aid, and I’m afraid there is nothing I can do to help you out.
Try calling Poison Control.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:15 pmObviously I am speaking with a boys, not a men. I’m done with this conversation.
I thought the “Editors” might able to hold a conversation even if we don’t necessarily agree with each other. Apparantly I am mistaken.
Have you served? Last chance children. Answer the question. It is as easy as yes or no…..
July 9th, 2005 at 3:16 pmYes, and they say kill the mongoloid boys.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:17 pm“If you REALLY think that Bush has never tied Saddam to 9/11, then you have drunk too much of the fool-aid, and I’m afraid there is nothing I can do to help you out.”
Posting some sort of evidence might help, if you’ve got any. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:18 pmED, I’d really like you to respond to this. It’s the third time I’ve asked:
Are the terrorists just striking a few hard blows to get us to retreat?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:18 pmED,
It help to chew your crow when you eat it.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:19 pmMark,
I’m here to talk about the issues. I’m not here to talk about me. Maybe you should try some sort of online dating site.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:20 pmHAHA! Start talkin’ issues then ED.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:21 pmTed,
July 9th, 2005 at 3:22 pmYou think the terrorists don’t want us to retreat from the Middle East? Your question is ludicrous.
How so, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:23 pmThank you for responding. We’re finally getting somewhere. Read comment #69 — it’s right on the money. They want this fight in Iraq. They want this fight in Afghanistan. They want this fight in London. They’d be a dead organization were it not for Bush’s missteps. They’re getting stronger and stronger. They couldn’t care less if we retreated now — they’re ready to fight anywhere now. That’s the problem and you still don’t get it. If you think we’re gonna win this military, God help us.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:24 pmI’m here to talk about the issues.
Apparently then, Ed thinks the serious issues are the shortcomings of liberals, the posters on this website, and how ridiculous everyone is — except for him.
Those are some great issues, but I doubt we’ll be seeing anyone talk about them in a serious forum, except for other conservative shills like our pal Ed here.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:24 pmSo where is that evidence John S? Don’t be shy, post it. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:27 pmMark,
July 9th, 2005 at 3:27 pmYou are interrupting Eds’fantasy of playing a righty radio host and trying convert the ignorant(Ha!)
You are afraid to answer the question.
The issue is that we are falling short on recruiting. Have you already served your time to defend the country and kill the terrorists.
Remember, people like yourself are gung-ho on the war in Iraq.
Little children, trying to be big republican men. How laughable.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:28 pmI would like to extend a personal note of thanks to Editors.
His posts are so ludicrous, so completely off the mark and so out of touch with reality that the vast majority of people who come to this board will see first hand what the conservatives really are about.
I don’t think a progressive faking a braindead conservative position on this board could have done HALF as a good a job of showing the inanity of their views than Editors had done himself.
Please, Ed, keep up the good work, and keep showing the rest of us how intellectually bankrupt you and your kind are.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:29 pmTed,
US forces are killing jihadists by the truckload in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve set up democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To suggest that’s what the terrorists want is asinine.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:29 pmED,
Here’s your proof that the terrorists want BushCo elected.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:30 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6742421/
In #93, Mark again implicity admits that Karl Rove was correct in saying liberals don’t support America in the war on terror. Thanks again, Mark.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:31 pm“We want Bush because with him the American troops will stay in Iraq and that way we will be able to develop,� Malbrunot cited the captor as saying.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6742421/
July 9th, 2005 at 3:31 pmEditors-
How is this for starters:
“I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
Letter from Bush to congress
Want more?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:31 pmAre we killing more than are being created, ED?
As for Bush saying Iraq was connected to 9-11, read this:
July 9th, 2005 at 3:32 pm“The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.” He wanted us to believe the 9-11 perpetrators were in control over WMD in Iraq.
In #94, poor John again chooses to post snarky, juvenile insults rather than evidence. You have to wonder why that is. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:32 pmNEXT, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:32 pmIn #97, Editors yet again purposely mischaracterizes someone’s position thereby proving how bankrupt his credibility is. Thanks again, Editors.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:33 pmIn #99, John again shoves Editors nose in the evidence, but he continually keeps ignoring it. You have to wonder why that is.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:34 pmSkid,
July 9th, 2005 at 3:34 pmWell, if one French guy says it, it must be true! *L*
Ted –
“He wanted us to believe the 9-11 perpetrators were in control over WMD in Iraq.”
Except that is not what he said.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:35 pmIt depends of what the definition of is is.
How about a response to John in number 99?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:37 pmHate the french, ED? That’s the spirit. Nevermind that he was held captive, thus having a much closer viewpoint to the actual situation than you, no doubt.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:37 pmJohn S. -
Whether Iraq was involved with the specific attack on 9/11 and whether Iraq was involved with al Qaeda generally are two different questions. Bush did not ever say Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack.
Iraq did have connections with al Qaeda that is a fact. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, that is a fact.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:38 pmYour ignorance is showing ED.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:39 pmCite it ED.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:39 pmWell ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:40 pmED?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:41 pmWe’re waiting…
July 9th, 2005 at 3:41 pmCite what?
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000818
July 9th, 2005 at 3:42 pmThe statement said it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html
July 9th, 2005 at 3:43 pmFrom Ted’s link above: “A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda says it is calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab newspaper says.”
But Ted argues they don’t want a withdrawal. Go figure.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:45 pmWhether Iraq was involved with the specific attack on 9/11 and whether Iraq was involved with al Qaeda generally are two different questions. Bush did not ever say Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack.
Your capacity for duplicitousness and nuancing is unprecedented. I guess you take your cues from the top:
“In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.”
Christian Science Monitor (That must hurt to have a conservative publication admit the truth that you won’t)
Or how about this, then:
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001, and still goes on.”
From the “Mission Accomplished” speech
What’s your next semantical argument going to be?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:45 pmOh brother, I’ll try just one more time. Based on my previous comment the “Editors” claim that Karl Rove is right, I don’t support the war on terrorism.
Actually, based on the falling recruiting numbers, not many people in the GOP or democratic side support the war enough to keep up with the enlistment goals of our armed forces, with the exception of the Air Force which has kept it’s numbers in line with expectations. The other branches have not for three months in a row.
What say you now? Is it still my fault as an individual or more just the collective of my brethren?
I can’t wait to see the next response. Will it be as off the wall as the last?
Karl Rove, this is the same guy who “might” have outed a CIA operative, thus endangering the lives of Americans and allies all around the world. That same Karl Rove? Remember, I said “might” have. The grand jury and special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald are still working on the case. It has been nearly two years, but answers could be forth coming in the next few months. Even if it was not Karl, we do know that it did come from “someone” within the administration. These are highly classified documents and are not seen by many eyes. Karl, what a patriot.
Just to remind you, treason is punishable by death in a time of war.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:46 pm“Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.”
That’s exactly what I said. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:46 pmI’m going to go take a crap ED. I’ll check back. And no, I don’t expect you to clean it up after me. Show me where CH got the info, and off a credible source, and I’ll concider it.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:46 pmYou think they give a hoot about Spain? They’re trying to separate us from our allies. That’s part of the strategy. sap our resources, suck our money, weaken our military and you’re just along for the ride.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:48 pmHitchens is a primary source Skid: “When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office.”
July 9th, 2005 at 3:49 pmEditors-
Cheney pimped the lie, too, but I guess since technically Bush never said it…
“If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
On “Meet the Press”
July 9th, 2005 at 3:49 pm“When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office.”
Enough to attack them. I suppose they bombed London to entice the British to stay too, eh?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:50 pmEditors…
So many semantics, so little time.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:50 pm““If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.â€?”
That does not imply Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attack. As I said before, the war on terror is not all about 9/11. The liberation of Iraq is part of the war on terror.
Poor John, feel free to try again. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 3:53 pmOops, #125 should read:
“You think they give a hoot about Spain?”
Enough to attack them. I suppose they bombed London to entice the British to stay too, eh?
July 9th, 2005 at 3:54 pm“Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early ’90s–they can only say that if they’re illiterate. This is a slam dunk.” — James Woolsey, CIA director under President Bill Clinton, November 2003
July 9th, 2005 at 3:55 pm“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton
July 9th, 2005 at 3:56 pmour occupation of iraq has already given them the fodder they need to recruit. as long as we stay, they’ll continue to grow stronger. the question is how do you limit their recruiting powers — how do you lessen their support network? the military strategy is doing the inverse.
July 9th, 2005 at 3:59 pm“the military strategy is doing the inverse.”
No it is not.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:00 pmas least our differences are crystal clear. you go on your path and let me know how it turns out.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:01 pmEditors-
You should join the Jim Rose freak show…
I’ve never seen anyone thrust their head so far up their own ass.
“In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th  the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.”
Mission Accomplished!
So I guess when Bush says “In these 19 months…our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense.” he means that attacking Iraq wasn’t in reponse to 9/11?
And I suppose that when he says “We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th” while giving a speech about the “conclusion” of the war in Iraq, he really isn’t trying to say that Iraq was for the victims of 9/11.
And of course when he says “With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.” he really isn’t saying that Iraq received war as payback for 9/11.
Jim Rose wants you to be his new contortionist…you can give him a call at (206) 726-2460.
Enjoy your new career.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:05 pmOh, and isn’t it funny that Editors never actually links to a source he is allegedly “citing”?
Either he is falsifying the quotes, is too stupid to know how to make a hyperlink or is to lazy to paste it in.
Not that comes as a shock to the rest of us.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:08 pm“You should join the Jim Rose freak show…
I’ve never seen anyone thrust their head so far up their own ass.”
Another intellectual milestone from poor John S.
As I said, the war on terror is not all about 9/11. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, even though Iraq may not have been directly involved in the 9/11 attack. The war is more about stopping future attacks, not about simply avenging the last one. I understand that baffles you; that’s your problem.
But I also understand you and your fellow travelers don’t care about any of that, you just hate the president.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:11 pmAbu Nidal
Palestinian sources, however, told journalists that Abu Nidal had died of multiple gunshot wounds. Jane’s reported that Iraqi intelligence had been following him for several months and had found classified documents in his home about a U.S. attack on Iraq. When they arrived to raid his house on August 14 (not 16 August, according to Jane’s), fighting broke out between the ANO and Iraqi intelligence. In the midst of this, Abu Nidal rushed into his bedroom and died, though Jane’s writes that it remains unclear whether he killed himself in there or was killed by someone else. Jane’s sources insist that his body bore several gunshot wounds. Jane’s further suggests that Saddam may have ordered him arrested and killed because Abu Nidal was a mercenary who would have acted against Saddam in the event of an American invasion, had the money been right.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml
July 9th, 2005 at 4:11 pmBig support by Saddam, right?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:12 pm“Oh, and isn’t it funny that Editors never actually links to a source he is allegedly “citingâ€??”
Since I linked in post #115, now we have proof of one of two things – John is a liar, or John can’t read. Which is it, dishonesty or illiteracy? Perhaps both? *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:14 pmOne link out of how many, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:15 pmHey, they’re right. Let them defend the worst president ever. There sure is alot to defend. This guy has made a career of failure. A career.
You “editors” can go and deny all you want that Bush is a complete and ineffectual leader (and I use that term loosely). He has done nothing positive for anybody under the 200k/yr bracket. His environmental policies are horrible, there is no energy policy and there is no domestic policy. It all consists of “more of the same”. Don’t try to use facts with a true believer. The only way they learn is the hard way. These children come here to pick a trivial fight because they get off on it. It’s not about fact, it’s about confrontation.
51 percent does not make a mandate and a 43 percent approval does not make a popular president, no matter how much you tell yourselves otherwise. When this ship goes down, these cowards will be the first to jump.
Talk is cheap.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:16 pmSkid just found out that Saddam was a killer, often of his own people! *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:16 pmHAHA! Shift it ED
July 9th, 2005 at 4:17 pmYour opinion is cheap, twentyiqtwist, but thanks for sharing.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:18 pmNo, when Saddam and Rummie met up, I knew there was killing going on!
July 9th, 2005 at 4:18 pmhttp://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
July 9th, 2005 at 4:19 pmOne link out of how many, ED?
Yet again proves his intellectual dishonesty for everyone to see…
Everyone except himself, of course.
You keep going on the attack, though, Editors. We know that is what you and your ilk do when you know you are pissing into the wind, which only proves that you know you are full of it.
Like I said, enjoy your new career in the freak show Head-up-his-ass Man (that’s a catchy title).
We can’t wait for your next performance!
July 9th, 2005 at 4:20 pmWhy do you think Sadaam was saddened with the news of Reagan’s passing?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:21 pmSkid… So Rumsfeld met Hussein in the early 1980s? So what? Reagan met with Gorbachev, so I guess Reagan was a communist, eh? *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:23 pmJohn S. So which is it, liar or illiterate?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:23 pmNot in the same context of meeting ED
July 9th, 2005 at 4:23 pmBehold the incredible Head-up-his-ass Man!
Able to leap facts and evidence in a single bound!
Able to spin himself into a tizzy without vomiting!
Step right up — It only costs a nickel!
July 9th, 2005 at 4:24 pmPutting your insults in bold John S? That’ll show me! *L* So which is it?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:25 pmQuite the same, Skid.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:26 pm“Skid… So Rumsfeld met Hussein in the early 1980s to provide him with arms and intelligence to fight Iran with. So what?”
You shouldn’t leave out the context. Shame.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:27 pmExplain, if you can.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:27 pmDo I really need to?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:29 pm“So Rumsfeld met Hussein in the early 1980s to provide him with arms and intelligence to fight Iran with.”
That’s about right.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:29 pmRonnie wasn’t selling weapons to Gorbie, but Ronnie and Rummie WERE selling them to Saddam to gas Iranians and Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war. You know how it went, remember?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:30 pmI was correcting ED’s quote. You know, like an editor would.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:30 pmOk, folks it is time for me to come clean…
I don’t believe any of the rubbish that comes out of my mouth – so to speak- and neither should you.
It just sucks living at home with my mommy at 46, and never getting laid, and I voted for Bush twice and he sucks.
So, I come to message boards to try and piss people off and convinve them that up is down and left is right because I want everyone to be as miserable as I am.
Please forgive me for wasting your time, and if there are any cute chicks out there who want to engage in “hot chat”, please email me at editors@federalistjournal.com
I’m so horny and desperate…sigh. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:30 pmtwentyamptwist,
That was for ED.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:31 pmED the PRED.?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:32 pmOk, so we’re on the same page.
You can’t cry foul now about the madman you created and unleashed. Same goes for OBL.
It is disengenuous to use Saddam in the context of being a bad man who needs to be stopped when the U.S. is all about propping up bad men to do their bidding.
Blowback is a bitch.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:33 pm#161, look what that poor John S. has been reduced to, after getting caught in an obvious lie. So sad.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:34 pmI’m the king of the world.
Everyone must bow to my intellectual superiority!
What’s that, Mom? Do I have to take out the trash now? But I’m right in the middle of besting these liberal dogs…
Whimper. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:35 pmWho said it was him?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:35 pmYes, we provided some weapons to Iraq to tip the balance away from the Iranians, who were seen at the time as a much greater thrreat. So what was wrong with that? Nothing. What’s the point? All your hindsight is cheap.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:35 pmPerhaps you’re being undermined by your own?
Blowback is a bitch.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:37 pmEditors-
You must have some sort of persecution complex, since #161 didn’t come from me…but I’m sure you think everyone is out to get you.
Caught me in a lie? That’s a laugh…you linked to one source out of how many? My point stands.
Your intellectual flummery is nothing that I am concerned about, and quite obviously the only person entirely full of sh1t in here is you.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:37 pmThe US provided approximately 2% of Iraq’s weapons. To say we “created” him is asinine.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:37 pmDid you not read my post? I told you exactly what was wrong with that.
The CIA also provided some weapons and training to OBL. What was wrong with that? Do I have to spell out all the points in thick red crayon?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:38 pm“Caught me in a lie? That’s a laugh…you linked to one source out of how many? My point stands.”
Ah, so “never” means “once” now? Gotcha. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:38 pmBut Iranians helped Ronnie defeat Carter by not releasing the hostages until Ronnie’s very Inauguration Day. Remember? Double-crossed!
July 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pmThe US provided approximately 2% of Iraq’s weapons.
Got a source for that statisitc, or is that just another cherry plucked from your sphincter?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pmLike I said, twentyamp, your hindsight is cheap.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pmParsing, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:40 pmAh, so “never� means “once� now? Gotcha.
Ever a fan of the semantics (though I recall trolls like you demonizing Kerry for his ‘nuance’).
Try to stay focused…care to prove that you aren;t full of sh1t by citing a source for your dubious claim about how much of Iraq’s weapons came from the US?
Or are you going to keep running like the cockroach you are?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:41 pmThose darned Iranians and their timing…
July 9th, 2005 at 4:42 pmIt is the true moron who ignores past experience to fail today.
Your suit is cheap. Can’t you come up with something a little better than that? Go ask your rez buddies for some material.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:42 pmCheapening your hindsight claims as well, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:43 pmThat’s the game – semantics. The point is to tie up oppenents in drivel and wordgames. Talk about cheap.
Go away troll. Back under your bridge. We tire of you.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:44 pmCome on now, John S. You aren’t really gonna hold me to backing up my wild statistical claims, are you?
You’re no fun anymore. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:44 pmEditors-
So I guess we all know for sure beyond a shadow of a doubt what a lying turd you really are…
I’ll give you one more chance:
The US provided approximately 2% of Iraq’s weapons.
Back it up, or shut it up.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:46 pmRefute it, or shut up, John S.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:48 pmRight, “never” is “nuance”. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:48 pmProve it or shut it, ED. Takes two, remember?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:49 pmRefute it, or shut up, Skid. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 4:49 pm“Why should we offer solutions?�
John S. would clearly rather be part of the problem.
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal
He admits he is part of the problem, and an old hippie to boot. Too many acid trips.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:50 pmWaiting…
July 9th, 2005 at 4:50 pmWaiting…
July 9th, 2005 at 4:50 pmIgnore him
July 9th, 2005 at 4:51 pmDiaper time again, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 4:51 pmThat’s what I thought.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:52 pmWaiting….
July 9th, 2005 at 4:52 pmRemember, he knows if he had comments at AFJ, he’d be forced to monitor them 24/7 or shut them down. That’s how popular most people find his views. Ignore him. This is how this lonely old reprobate gets his only contact with the world he is too frightened to mingle with.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:55 pmOur website does have comments. Are there any honest liberals left? Not at this website apparently.
July 9th, 2005 at 4:59 pmOK, regardless of ED, let’s ALL go outside an tip a beverage for ALL our dead homeys, then tip it again in hope that our other homeys don’t come back dead.
PEACE
July 9th, 2005 at 5:11 pmhttp://www.ivaw.net/
http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/
July 9th, 2005 at 5:12 pmHow’s this? I trust the source isn’t too partisan for you?
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
“Conclusion
The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a “just war.” The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country’s policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government’s repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.”
July 9th, 2005 at 5:14 pmDid you have a point, twentyamp?
July 9th, 2005 at 5:18 pmOur website does have comments. Are there any honest liberals left? Not at this website apparently.
Well I’ll be a Republican, (never)it does have comments… correction, comment. I woud never have known, such a crap job of design and layout. That’s what he is so desperate about. Resist temptation. Someday he will remove them. But don’t give the little twit the traffic. from here.
July 9th, 2005 at 5:23 pmGod is a web design expert. Who knew? *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 5:28 pmDidn’t TP and other blogs cover this the other day?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1524856,00.html
It’s so nice to see the old media do its job.
July 9th, 2005 at 5:42 pmAnd God is against buying bonds? *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 5:44 pmI think “callous” is an understatement.
July 9th, 2005 at 5:48 pmregardless of what percentage of weapons came from the U.S. to Iraq, many of the munitions and technical skills exported to Iraq were in the WMD department. Consider how dead certian on the amounts of chemical and biological stockpiles Saddam Hussien was supposed to have had, as reported by the Bush admin.Those chemical attacks on the Kurds in the mid 80’s (the attacks most cited by the Bush admin to show what a monster Hussien is) were from chemicals sold to Iraq by the U.S. The Reagan admin used an enemy of my enemy approach in supporting Hussien.
To get back on topic, the main debate is over whether the current approach to fighting muslim extremists is working. In my and many other peoples opinion I would have to say no.
Invading Iraq was a mistake. You can spout as much noise as you like about spreading freedom and democracy, however in the minds average middle easterner the U.S. is an invading bully, there to steal oil.
part of the problem is the extreme black or white version of the world that so many of the bush supporters want to push. In the real world it is never that simple. When we fought for independance in this country it was a tough sell to many people. They may not have liked British rule that much, but were not so sure of breaking away.
The other big problem (besides the insurgents) for the Iraqi government, is the constant appearance to middle easterners as being a puppet government controlled by the U.S. Removing our troops and letting them settle there own issues would go along way to calming the middle east.
July 9th, 2005 at 5:54 pmBlack and white thiking helps when you are in denial of your true motives or want to throw critics off.
July 9th, 2005 at 6:01 pm[H]ere’s a brief history of estimates of the size of the insurgency:
Summer 2003 – There’s no insurgency! Just some bandits.
Winter 2004 – A few hundred to a couple thousand dead-enders.
Summer 2004 – As many as 5,000.
Fall 2004 – Up to 20,000.
Winter 2005 – About 40,000 dedicated, up to 160,000 kibitzers.
Summer 2005 – ?
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/003609.html
July 9th, 2005 at 6:12 pmThink Progress
July 9th, 2005 at 6:13 pmI guess we know *who* is part of the problem now, and now that we do, the solution would be to remove that part of the problem from office and deal with the other issues the way they need to be dealt with. The tried and true methods. Very simple. Don’t make it worse. Name one thing that has improved under this administration. Name one.
July 9th, 2005 at 6:18 pmThree things alone ensure no GOP candidates will be elected in 2006-8. All 3 have *improved* under this administration. The deficit, the size and intrusiveness of government and the incidence and number of terrorists and terrorist acts. Good-bye GOP.
July 9th, 2005 at 6:24 pmWhy is buying bonds callous?
July 9th, 2005 at 6:34 pmHAHA ED! Don’t quit your day job, unless its to go fight in Iraq for freedom.
July 9th, 2005 at 6:37 pmIs buying stocks callous too?
July 9th, 2005 at 6:45 pmJust like a child.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:01 pmWhy?
Why?
Why?
Me!
Me!
Me!
It will be good to get adults back in the Government.
Ahh, the good old days…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1425022,00.html
And we are barely out of the first quarter of July…
http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
July 9th, 2005 at 7:07 pmWe will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them. ” President George W Bush Address to the Nation September 11th 2001
“Three and a half years ago, the United States mourned our dead, gathered our resolve and accepted a mission. We made a decision to stop threats to the American people before they arrive on our shores and we have acted on that decision.We’re also determined to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.This objective will not be achieved easily or all at once or primarily by force of arms. We know that freedom by definition must be chosen and that the democratic institutions of other nations will not look like our own.Yet we also know that our security increasingly depends on the hope and progress of other nations now simmering in despair and resentment.And that hope and progress is found only in the advance of freedom.”
Bush speech on terrorism Tuesday, March 8, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/bush.transcript/
“Our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people.’ The free world is united in its resolve: We will never yield to terrorists and murderers. In the face of such adversaries, there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy, and we will fight until the enemy is defeated.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050709.html
Is Think Progress run by high school students or what? Look from the start he said the was no difference between terrorists themselves and nations that allow them to operate, (Iraq, think Abu Nidal, Zaqarwi!). In the second quote he clearly states we will not win the war through military action alone. Now you take issue with the phrase “few hard blows” then site Bin Laden’s patience? Well, it’s not as though they are attacking the Western powers weekly is it? Monthly? As much as they would like to?The length of time they are willing to fight us is irrelevant unless you realize they think we are weak and will falter over time. Bin Laden called us “paper tigers” after clintoon ran from casualties in Somalia. They do take their time, but some of that is due to the hardships we place on their operational effectiveness. They were busy in 2000, made a big hit in 2001, and have been run into the ground like dogs ever since. We complicate their operations, they don’t even know who they have in the field or who we are leaning on at GITMO, but they always know our weaker elements will be doing some of their propaganda work for them. Just like Madrid the London attacks are meant to apply political pressure on allies, as opposed to 9/11 that was an attack on our economy as much as our people and landmarks, and the failure of their plan was they wanted to decapitate our military and government. Will “the violence…only intensify over time?” Well that depends on the ability of our enemies to: 1. access WMD; 2. divide us through the manipulation of our free societies and humane nature. More than that it dedends on if civilization will come together, because only then will terrorism be suppressed. We all know it will never be eliminated all together, one lone nut like the Unibomber is all it takes. But blaming hurricanes on Bush, or complaining about “hazmat exclusion zones” while discussing homicide bombings, or denigrating our war effortin Iraq is not helping one bit. Can you help defeat terrorism or do you care more about your hatred of Bush?
July 9th, 2005 at 7:19 pmFrom the Indictment against Usama Bin Laden, Nov 6, 1998.
Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
July 9th, 2005 at 7:21 pmWho else “misunderstood” the threat of terrorism? Where’s that paranoid John Sh1t. This question is way too easy, but I bet he can’t answer it.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:23 pmWeak link.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:35 pmThis is good news! For AFJ.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:42 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/international/middleeast/07shiites.html?
From the Indictment against Usama Bin Laden, Nov 6, 1998.
Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.
http://www.fas.org/ irp/ news/ 1998/ 11/ 98110602_nlt.html
Wow! Stewed Cankersore, you amaze me! I think I have a federal indictment around here someplace… aha! Yes! There it is! A Federal indictment against … a Ham Sandwich! APB! APB! Be on the look out for a Ham Sandwich! The President is hungry and Laura don’t cook.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:45 pmSince Stewed is a bit thick, I will help him out…
July 9th, 2005 at 7:50 pmhttp://www.barrypopik.com/article/84/indict-a-ham-sandwich
Really Stewed, that was the least smart thing you could have done. It actually proves you and this administration are full of shit, and… as dumb as a ham sandwich. I loved the way you waved that loser around as if it was a remarkable find, though. That was priceless. Please, continue making an ass out of yourself. We do enjoy the spectacle as much as you seem to enjoy becoming it.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:57 pmI see Editors after all his bitching and moaning still cannot backup his ridiculous statement:
The US provided approximately 2% of Iraq’s weapons.
So now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is entirely full of shit. Anything he has to say must be viewed with complete disbelief, since he feels it is acceptable to make up statistics, or just about anything else as he goes along.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:01 pmRefute it, or shut up, John S.
Sadly, Editors, when you pull BS statistics from your rectum it is not my job to refute you.
It is your job to backup where you derived your statistics from.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:03 pmAnd indict a ham sammich!
July 9th, 2005 at 8:06 pmI was waiting for the ‘proof’ to ED’s claim as well. Oh well…
July 9th, 2005 at 8:06 pmAnd speaking of Ham Sammiches… I think we have enough right here to indict both ED and Stewed, and then some…
July 9th, 2005 at 8:08 pmSpeaking of ham sandwiches…
Where did we get all these demented conservative shills from all of a sudden?
I would be the first one to welcome an alternative view point, if it had any substance behind it. But all these shills do is post unsubstantiated nonsense and try to drag the discussion down into the gutter.
It really is a shame.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:10 pm“Where did we get all these demented conservative shills from all of a sudden?
I would be the first one to welcome an alternative view point..”
Now that is funny! *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 8:12 pmNormal humans do not carry around a thick briefing book full of statistics when engaged in conversation. Liberals may differ.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:14 pmOne of the biggest mistakes Bush and his cronies made was the same mistake LBJ and his cronies made during the Vietnam War. Nobody, and I mean absolutly NOBODY, took the time to really study the “enemy” they were facing. LBJ and his buddies didn’t take the time to learn about the Vietnamese and how tenaciously they had fought the Chinese, the Japanese, and the French. Therefore they new not what they really faced.
Bush and his fellow fools have done the same thing when it came to bin Laden and his followers, as well as the Taliban. Remember what the Taliban did to the Superpower Soviet Union who thought that their military might would bring any opponent to their knees. And now Bush is trying to do the same thing that the Soviets tried to do.
Bush has to realize that sometimes bigger is not always better. Our big tanks, and guns, and numbers don’t seem to be stopping the IED’s and car bombings. As we saw in London on Thursday, it has not stopped the bombings in places other then Iraq and Afganistan either.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:21 pmIts called logic and investigation, ED. Try it.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:25 pmI would be the first one to welcome an alternative view point, if it had any substance behind it. But all these shills do is post unsubstantiated nonsense and try to drag the discussion down into the gutter.
It really is a shame.
True. It’s one thing to put lipstick on a pig but, by way of an example, to deny the holocaust and say Hitler was misunderstood, that’s not an alternative viewpoint, that’s demented lunacy.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:25 pmInternet is an amazing thing. many stats can be found there, and I am pretty sure you have access ed.
I too am looking forward to buckshot returning, at least his debates were civilized and mature, instead of the incessent name calling ed seems to prefer.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:25 pmMay God Rest Our Souls…
T
July 9th, 2005 at 8:29 pmNormal humans do not carry around a thick briefing book full of statistics when engaged in conversation.
No, Ed, normal humans do not make up statistics to try to prove an erroneous point.
But you sure do.
Why don’t you just get off that high horse of yours and admit that you made the statistic up? We all know you did, and your efforts to weasel your way out only make you like an even bigger fool than you already are.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:29 pmI haven’t made up anything John S. We’ve already documented your fabrications in this thread.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:40 pmGrandpa Eddie – “And now Bush is trying to do the same thing that the Soviets tried to do.”
President Bush tried and succeeded in bringing a democratic government to Afghanistan. The Soviets were not trying to bring democracy, and they failed in occupying Afghanistan. Get a grip.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:42 pmKrazny — I’m not the one doing all the name-calling.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:42 pm“The propaganda spun by the far left that the U.S. armed Iraq is false and backed by no facts. The so-called anti-war types are more interested in slamming Bush than stopping a war. None have been able to name one American-made weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.”
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/123424.shtml
July 9th, 2005 at 8:53 pmBut you just posted that the U.S. was responsible for 2% of the Iraqi weapons. now your saying the U.S. supplied no weapons to Iraq?
PS I have a nice link for you Ed
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
and your right you don’t do all the name calling but that is mostly what you do.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:31 pmI see Editors after all his bitching and moaning still cannot backup his ridiculous statement:
The US provided approximately 2% of Iraq’s weapons.
So now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is entirely full of shit. Anything he has to say must be viewed with complete disbelief, since he feels it is acceptable to make up statistics, or just about anything else as he goes along.
Comment by John S.
What tanks were we blowing up in both wars? t-37. ak-47 a US product? Mig? Do we have or make rocket propelled grenades? It was the frogs and the germans who did much of the work on the WMD. It was the Russians who worked on the nukes. You got a pic of Rummy shanking hands and what? thats what i thought.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:34 pmTry reading the Article Fake it explains exactly how the U.S. helped Saddam and Iraq.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:37 pmEd I have to discount most of your newsmax article. The obvious slant and angry tones show it to be a neo-con echo chamber.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:42 pmRead? fake?
Right.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:43 pmAlso I love this segment in the newsmax article makes selling arms to an enemy of the U.S. almost patriotic.
In fact, when it appeared the Iraqis were on the verge of victory, the Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. The infamous Iran-Contra scandal involved a large number of badly needed U.S. TOW anti-tank missiles that were sold to Iran.
The U.S. missiles proved to be critical to the Iranian defense against Iraq’s superior Russian tank force. The result was a stalemate and the war ended.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:44 pmHow’s that foot taste, ED?
July 9th, 2005 at 9:46 pmto John s
got any ideas yet? Have you cleaned up that shit yet?
July 9th, 2005 at 9:55 pmTruth be told the article I linked indicates that the only military weapons sold to Iraq were several helicopters (that were not outfitted for combat) and several trucks that may or may not have been modified.
However money was given to Iraq to continue buying weapons, and if one shipment of chemicals were stopped by the state department, one has to wonder if there were others that were not. More research needed on that subject.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:58 pmhere is another good article about US-Iraq relations previous to the first gulf war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
July 9th, 2005 at 10:03 pmalso this one is really juicy on details of the Saddam-Reagan-Rumsfeld love triangle.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
July 9th, 2005 at 10:06 pm“several helicopters and several trucks”
Sounds like my recollection of 2% was too high then. I heard that figure on the radio I think, quite a while ago. The idea the US “created” Saddam Hussein with a couple of trucks and helicopters is asinine, as I said.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:15 pmFrom Krazy’s CBS link:
It’s fascinating to watch liberals argue that Saddam was such a horrible guy in the 1980s, but at the same time not so bad after 2001. When hating the American President is your only principle, that’s what you get.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:27 pmKrazy’s other link was to the group “Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq”
Good to know which side you’re on.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:28 pmnot sure how we got on who “created” Saddam Hussien?
Also thanks for admitting you pulled the 2% figure out of your ass.
the trucks and helis were a small (very small) part of the assistance given to Saddam. Note the billions of dollars, and chemical and biological “duel use” agents.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:29 pmIMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH
July 9th, 2005 at 10:29 pmI was actually arguing that the US (reagan admin) supplied material aid to Saddam Hussien please keep on target.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:33 pm“Also thanks for admitting you pulled the 2% figure out of your ass.”
A lie. That is not what I said. Are there any liberals with any principles besides hating the American President?
July 9th, 2005 at 10:35 pmyou should have checked the CASI site a little closer here is the leader on top of their page.
“Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI) provides information about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and its context. It aims to raise awareness of the effecs on Iraq of the sanctions which were in place until May 2003, and previously campaigned on humanitarian grounds for the lifting of non-military sanctions. CASI does not support or have ties to the government of Iraq.”
Please note the part about not supporting the iraq government.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:35 pm“I was actually arguing that the US (reagan admin) supplied material aid to Saddam Hussien please keep on target.”
No one is disputing that. So what is your point?
July 9th, 2005 at 10:35 pmhow does saying you pulled a phantom figure from some distant radio show indicate I hate the president?
July 9th, 2005 at 10:37 pmMany of the same people who were arguing for lifting the sanctions, were arguing that we didn’t need to invade Iraq because the sanctions were working.
They should be very happy – the sanctions are gone, and Iraq has a democratic government.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:39 pmSaddam will never face trial. He will suffer a fatal heart
July 9th, 2005 at 10:44 pmattack or something before trial. If he testifies he knows
he can have Bush41 and Bush43, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfashitz brought to trial at the World Court for conspiricy. This involving genocide for providing chemical WMD during the Iran-Iraq war. I can’t wait.
sure the sanctions are lifted, the government has been democratically elected, the cities are in shambles,and water and power has not been restored to most of the country. Somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. The majority of the world dislikes or disdains our current government for good reason.
the “ruling body” exists in a narrow “green zone” and only with the backing of US troops. Revolutions must come from within not be forced from the outside.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:45 pmanyway I am for dinner be well all
July 9th, 2005 at 10:45 pmKrazy – Who cares what “the world” thinks? Right and wrong are not determined by what the French think.
July 9th, 2005 at 10:47 pmNAVY VET – Maybe they’ll also be tried for killing Elvis and JFK. Or maybe you need to loosen your tinfoil hat a bit. *L*
July 9th, 2005 at 10:51 pm“Our strategy to keep the peace in the longer term is to help change the conditions that give rise to extremism and terror, especially in the broader Middle East.
Parts of that region have been caught for generations in the cycle of tyranny and despair and radicalism.
When a dictatorship controls the political life of a country, responsible opposition cannot develop and dissent is driven underground and toward the extreme.
And to draw attention away from their social and economic failures, dictators place blame on other countries and other races and stir the hatred that leads to violence.
This status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off.”
This acknowledges our failed past in the region, and this is not the only statement on the subject, but I’m not expending to much on this right now. This is from the March speech linked above : )
July 9th, 2005 at 11:00 pmWe played both sides in the iran Iraq war. We were most worried about the USSR at the time. How many here even remember the iran iraq war? How about the yellow rain that fell in Afghanistan? Though our support of the mujahadeen led to the Taliban, we had a moral obligation to shut down the USSr, maybe if the rest of the free world would have stepped up to the plate would not have had to lay down with so many dogs, not that that is much of an excuse. But it makes today seen like de javu (sic). It happened, and now we are fighting for the survival of civilization against people who would turn back the clock a thousand years, we better win this one for sure.
God Hates Conservatives.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:11 pmah, i posted a poll on another website recently about which military manuever under a republican president in the last 100 years is your favorite: grenada, panama, iraq 1 or iraq 2?
July 9th, 2005 at 11:20 pmyou could vote for wwi, wwii or korea — but those all occurred under democratic presidents. (i’ll count viet nam as a tossup since both effed it up).
so, what do you think? i’ve gotta go for iraq 1. george the elder at least seemed to understand that occupying a country is no way to defeat terrorism. (see britain’s occupation of northern ireland).
i mean really, besides repeat it ad nauseum, what has the republican party done to make us more safe — besides throwing it at their hoes the defense industry?
July 9th, 2005 at 11:24 pmand by it i meant money obviously.
really, you defeat terrorists through infiltration and special forces. what we’re doing doesn’t even begin to make sense.
and why, again, did we leave the fight in afghanistan when the whole world was with us — when we were with each other?
btw, you guys must really be enjoying the thowing around of the “party of negativity” label that you all wore so well for most of the 20th century when you were the minority party on the hill. how quickly they forget!
July 9th, 2005 at 11:28 pmI haven’t made up anything John S. We’ve already documented your fabrications in this thread.
Ed, we already know what your “documentation” is worth:
Jack shit.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:36 pmgot any ideas yet? Have you cleaned up that shit yet?
Clean up your own shit, Karl.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:38 pmyou could vote for wwi, wwii or korea  but those all occurred under democratic presidents. (i’ll count viet nam as a tossup since both effed it up).
so, what do you think? i’ve gotta go for iraq 1. george the elder at least seemed to understand that occupying a country is no way to defeat terrorism. mcd
So the fact republicans didn’t politicize WW2 for their benefit, even though they could have pointed out plenty of mistakes by FDR, (who kept stalin alive with cpr since we are getting shit over saddam) means nothing to our victory? I point out korea ended in a stalemate and we still have troops there and a threat to the region. Nam? Lets see that went on for what, ten years before Nixon was elected? Way to spread the blame on nam, hell kerry did more to f*ck that war up than nixon did the little traitor LT. By the way GW1 was not meant to “defeat terrorism” it was to free kuwait, we did that and came home even though the left screamed about oil the whole time.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:42 pmA lie. That is not what I said. Are there any liberals with any principles besides hating the American President?
The only lying is you, Ed.
Sounds like my recollection of 2% was too high then. I heard that figure on the radio I think, quite a while ago.
Sounds like you plucked that figure straight out of your ass, and then prove that you have no source for it.
Or do you want to try again with this statement:
The US provided approximately 2% of Iraq’s weapons.
No? Can’t back it up? So then you are beyond a shadow of a doubt full of shit.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:43 pm“documentation� = NewsMax Article!
LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO!
July 10th, 2005 at 12:20 amLMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO! LMAO!
Just as a thought, even though everyone has already commented on everything under the sun, have any of you stopped to think that maybe the terrorists are looking at Iraq to see weakness in our resolve? What if it’s like Vietnam in the fact that when we pulled out, our enemies saw it more as a sign of weakness than anything. The Soviets pressed for advantage when we pulled out of Vietnam. And then we tried to gain some on the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80’s. I don’t like the fact that many of our fellow Americans are over seas in harms way any more than anyone else, but I believe that we need to stick it out to show our enemies that we have the resolve necessary, that we aren’t weak. Another issue that I see is that we back home can’t come together to fix the problems so that in the end, our troops can come home. We are are very obliging to bicker with one another instead of working together to make a solution that will do the job. Maybe it is cliche to say “stay the course” but maybe, if we consider it, it could be the best way currently until the Iraqi people are more fully stabalized and can handle it on their own. Perhaps it wasn’t the best idea to go to Iraq in the first place but we are there, and you can’t change that fact now, hindsight is 20/20 you know?
July 10th, 2005 at 4:25 amWell, well, well…….. look at all the Bushevik postings here these days on Think Progress; truly it’s the Pussyhawk League swaning about in full aerobatic formation. Their masters must really have a full load in their diapers for these flighty litle birds to be so busy flapping their wings in such lame attempts at damage control. Mind you, it’s not as though the Lefties are offering up much of an alternative. So here we are; a (poorly) trained chimp in the white house and a congress full of republican and democratic self-absorbed whores commonly called politicians, who claim to be acting in the best interests of ALL Americans. Personally, it really tightens my southern pucker to see our country being ass-stabbed by Mammon-worshippers and strap-on crapitalists. How about the rest of you? Hey Righties: Are you seriously content with this current crop of cash-collecting conservative clowns? Hey Lefties: Have you got something better to offer up, or are you just jerkin’ your political gherkin? Over to you.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:25 amJohn S., documented liar right here in this thread (”never” means “once”), who cannot refute a single word I’ve written, with his little boy potty mouth, demonstrates why conservative blogs must moderate their comments. Too many uncivilized liberals out there.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:58 amThey both suck incredible amounts of ass. It’s like having to choose between being on the side of a religiously zealous Francisco Franco (hard right fascist) or an intellectually ambiguous Neville Chamberlain (hard left wimp).
Amazingly enough, I think a majority of people are fed up with both extreme alternatives, which is why voter turnout has been so poor for so many years.
We already know there are loads of us ready to gravitave towards a real Progressive party…if only we had one to vote for (aside from the lame excuse that passes for one now).
Where’s Teddy Roosevelt when you need him…
July 10th, 2005 at 11:04 amJohn S., documented liar right here in this thread (�never� means “once�), who cannot refute a single word I’ve written, with his little boy potty mouth, demonstrates why conservative blogs must moderate their comments.
You think you’re fooling anyone, Editors? Because you aren’t.
You want so desperately equate me with being a liar since I casually branded you as habitually unable to cite (more specifically link) to all the sources you post. You want to get hung up on the fact that out of a large number of “cited” sources by you, you only linked to one, and therefore that means my claim of “never” is a lie.
Oh, and isn’t it funny that Editors never actually links to a source he is allegedly “citing�?
Either he is falsifying the quotes, is too stupid to know how to make a hyperlink or is to lazy to paste it in.
Meanwhile, my point stands. You make up these wild claims:
The US provided approximately 2% of Iraq’s weapons.
Then you try to weasel ot of having to actually cite the source:
Normal humans do not carry around a thick briefing book full of statistics when engaged in conversation.
Because in fact, you made it up based on your “memory”:
Sounds like my recollection of 2% was too high then. I heard that figure on the radio I think, quite a while ago.
So I think the record clearly shows (to everyone except you) who is the real liar here.
But that was a very nice attempt to deflect attention away from your lying shennanigans and onto me. But this is exactly why progressive website don’t “moderate” their comments.
Too many full of shit conservatives out there who are more than willing to show everyone exactly what they are made of.
Case closed.
July 10th, 2005 at 11:16 amWhere’s Teddy Roosevelt when you need him…
Comment by John S.
Like you could stomach any thing Teddy did? Teddy with a nuke on 9/12, hmmmm, not that I don’t like the idea but really, if you can’t handle this PC war on terror you would shit yourself with Teddy swinging that big stick. Ha Ha Ha , that’s rich!
July 10th, 2005 at 12:11 pmPotty-mouth John’s standard: If a person heard something on the radio (or presumably television as well) rather than reading it on a linkable website, that person is a liar. Strange, very strange.
Note that to date John still has never refuted a single word I’ve posted. “Liar, liar, pants on fire” is not considered a refutation after the 2nd grade, Johnny. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 12:38 pmNeed a tissue ED?
July 10th, 2005 at 12:48 pmLOL
I guess you’ve worn your shovel down to the nub digging that hole you’re in, so I’ll give you a fresh one:
If a person heard something on the radio…
What station? What date? What person said it? If you can’t answer any of these questions, then you have no business citing the information as a fact in order to refute someone else. Link
Note that to date John still has never refuted a single word I’ve posted.
When you make ridiculous claims, the burden of proof is on you to back them up, not on me to refute them. But I’m sure you already knew that when you said:
Posting some sort of evidence might help, if you’ve got any. Link
And of course we can all note that when Editors posts his waves of attack on me, he avoids referring to the written record, which we all know is his MO: Make it up as you go along.
Keep on digging, buddy…
July 10th, 2005 at 12:51 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/
This will all be over soon. Once that disgusting pig Rove goes down, BushBoy will fold like a cheap suit. Maybe we can throw Jimmy/Jeff in there with his man-date, Karl.
Who’s going to handle the politics after Rove? Cheney? Rice? (what exactly is she getting paid for? Her Soviet experience?) Hahaha!
Without Rove, the chimp (and GOP) are nothing. Watch the message discipline go down the toilet.
July 10th, 2005 at 1:01 pmFrom twentyamp’s link above: “Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative”
July 10th, 2005 at 1:31 pm“If you can’t answer any of these questions, then you have no business…”
“When you make ridiculous claims, the burden of proof is on you…”
Can you provide a link to all these rules for this forum, or are you making them up? *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 1:32 pmI think it was Bush who thought we can deliver a few hard blows to terrorists and force them to retreat.
Mission Accomplished, anyone? Bring ‘em on?
July 10th, 2005 at 1:33 pmCan you provide a link to all these rules for this forum, or are you making them up?
This is your modus operandi, not mine. Enjoy the reading.
When you make ridiculous claims, the burden of proof is on you
Also known as argumentum ad ignoratium or argument from ignorance, this fallacious argument is structured as thus:
“No one has ever proved that the Loch Ness Monster exists, so it must not exist.”
“No one has ever proved that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, so it must exist.”
These arguments are contradictory, only one can be true and it is not possible to tell which one it is. Such an argument proves nothing, its main effect is to shift the burden of proof. – Source
Other links
If you can’t answer any of these questions, then you have no business citing the information as a fact
When citing radio segments as a source one needs to provide:
“Title of episode or segment.” Title of Program. Title of Series. Name of Network. Call letters and city of local station. Broadcast Date.
e.g. “Yes…But Is It Art?” Narr. Morley Safer. Sixty Minutes. CBS. KNXT, Los Angeles. 19 Sept. 1993. – Source
And I will point out that I think that in a casual forum such as this it is not necessary to use a formal citation as you would in a paper or article, but you should at least be able to point to the information contained therein.
Other links
July 10th, 2005 at 1:47 pmWell, well, well…….. look at all the Bushevik postings here these days on Think Progress; truly it’s the Pussyhawk League swaning about in full aerobatic formation. Their masters must really have a full load in their diapers for these flighty litle birds to be so busy flapping their wings in such lame attempts at damage control. Mind you, it’s not as though the Lefties are offering up much of an alternative. So here we are; a (poorly) trained chimp in the white house and a congress full of republican and democratic self-absorbed whores commonly called politicians, who claim to be acting in the best interests of ALL Americans. Personally, it really tightens my southern pucker to see our country being ass-stabbed by Mammon-worshippers and strap-on crapitalists. How about the rest of you? Hey Righties: Are you seriously content with this current crop of cash-collecting conservative clowns? Hey Lefties: Have you got something better to offer up, or are you just jerkin’ your political gherkin? Over to you.
Comment by SODOPH  July 10, 2005 @ 9:25 am
Hey! Buttbot! LTNS!
GoD! I’m GooD!
July 10th, 2005 at 2:22 pmCan a Nation divided stand? Are we not all Americans? Would it not be considered counterproductive just to do name calling instead of offering real solutions to problems that our Nation faces? I am fed up as much as anyone of many things that President Bush has done, but I want to see solutions not just name calling. The problem with both major parties is that they are two polarized. The right is really the far right and the left is the extreme left. So we get Radical Right leaders who don’t have our best interest in mind, but then on the other side we have left-liberals that haven’t been able to hack it either. I consider myself to be a Liberal-Nationalist, for I believe we are a Nation-State and need to defend our own interests as a Nation. Many of the policies of both sides I see as self defeating and harmful to our National Security. We need a better dialouge over what we currently have in this nation. The Polity is watching and eventually they’ll say we’re sick of both of you, we need a change, and maybe something similar to the revolution of the 60’s will happen. Preferably not a revolution that brings about extreme left liberalism though. :)
July 10th, 2005 at 2:39 pm“When citing radio segments as a source one needs to provide:”
Where is the link to the rules? If such rules exist anywhere but in your own mind, you must be able to provide a link. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 2:49 pm“Mission Accomplished, anyone? Bring ‘em on?”
Does ex-hippie have a point, or is he having a flashback?
July 10th, 2005 at 2:50 pmI noticed that my plea falls on deaf ears “The Editors” Why?
July 10th, 2005 at 2:51 pmI need some more paper. I’m leaking again.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:52 pmEven though I laughed at that comment, Janitors, you prove my point!
July 10th, 2005 at 2:53 pmFidel Castro For President! Viva Fidel!
July 10th, 2005 at 2:55 pmOnly liberals and lefties want to hold hands. We will drive our enemies before us and listen to the wailing of their women and children as we smite them. God has ordained it.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:56 pmThat was a good picture Janitors, is that Karl Rove’s head on a womans body? I had a laugh at that one. Potty humor is funny.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:57 pmDrive our enemies before us? You definitely need to seek psyciatric help.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:58 pmI am a psychiatrist. If I was a little more neurotic than my patients I would be one of them.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:12 pm“Preferably not a revolution that brings about extreme left liberalism though”
Extreme left liberalism? WTF is that? Please tell me you aren’t a disenchanted conservative? We see so many of you lately. Shell-shocked. Realize you have been sold a pig in a poke? But you still believe all the propaganda that turned you into an idiot in the first place.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:16 pmNo, you are being ignorant if you believe that there is only a liberal and a conservative, there are differing forms of liberalism and differing forms of conservatism. For example, Neo-Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, Left-Liberals, New Deal-Liberals, Libertarians. Each of these groups have differing views on politics and the world. It’s obvious by your remarks that you are ignorant of the differences. And to answer your other question, no I am not a disenchanted conservative as you call it. Frankly I don’t think you read my whole response. And by your use of swearing, you show that your grasp of the English language is very limited indeed.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:00 pmLibertarians? What are they? I never heard of them before? Are they like them vegans? You know, liberal vegetarian librarians or something?
July 10th, 2005 at 5:59 pmWhere is the link to the rules? If such rules exist anywhere but in your own mind, you must be able to provide a link.
My goodness, but you are an incredibly obtuse moron.
Refer back to my original post.
If you have above a third grade reading level, you would see the two links clearly marked under the section that addresses the subject.
But, since you aren’t that intelligent, I will spoon feed them to you…
Try looking here and here.
If you still can’t figure it out, that’s too bad. I won’t be reposting the same information a third time.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:02 pmYou know, it’s all so confusing. I think I will stick to my system. Idiots and non-idiots.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:02 pm“If you have above a third grade reading level, you would see the two links clearly marked under the section that addresses the subject.”
Links to some other site don’t provide the rules for this site. *L* That’s what I asked you for.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:08 pmLinks to some other site don’t provide the rules for this site.
Wow, you really are obtuse.
Think Progress doesn’t flesh out the “rules” for a rational debate nor does it specify “rules” for creating a valid argument. But I assure you, in the world of acceptable human interaction there are indeed such rules, and I have been more adequate in attempting to point them out to you.
Think Progress does not have rules regarding adultery, murder or theft even though there are indeed accepted rules and laws for such things that supercede the rules that Think Progress may or may not list.
But yet again, you prove your penchant for intellectual dishonesty.
And speaking of which, you did not ask for the rules of this site. You said:
Where is the link to the rules? If such rules exist anywhere but in your own mind, you must be able to provide a link.
Not only did you never mention anything about the rules here in this statement, but I more than succesfully proved that such rules clearly exist in the world, and not just in my mind.
Or do you just want to keep making it up as you go along to cover the fact that the hole you are digging keeps getting bigger and bigger?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:17 pmAre you threatening me?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:35 pmNo, I am not, Great Cornholio.
Do you also require TP for your bunghole?
LOL
July 10th, 2005 at 6:44 pm“Think Progress doesn’t flesh out the “rulesâ€? for a rational debate nor does it specify “rulesâ€? for creating a valid argument. But I assure you, in the world of acceptable human interaction there are indeed such rules, and I have been more adequate in attempting to point them out to you.”
In John’s mind, there are two rules of debate – Call names and include vulgarities. *L*
I’ll bet John is great fun in conversation around the Thanksgiving dinner table – “Document your SOURCE, you F*$^ing Sh$^head, and pass the yams!!!” “Johnny, don’t speak to your mother like that.” *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 6:48 pmIn John’s mind, there are two rules of debate – Call names and include vulgarities.
1. Please list for me where I have noted these are my thoughts.
“Document your SOURCE, you F*$^ing Sh$^head, and pass the yams!!!�
2. Please list for me where I have used the term F*$^.
Or are we still just making it up as we go along?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:58 pm“Please list for me where I have noted these are my thoughts.”
You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. Perhaps you’re thoughtlessly spewing obcenities, only you can know that.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:04 pmAww…I’m sorry if the word ass offends you. It is in the Bible after all. It also happens to be in the dictionary.
I would think you have read either of these tomes at some point in your life.
It is nice to see, though, that you have resorted to this juvenile level of exchange due to your inability to contend with the fact that you have no credibility whatsoever, since you have proven that on relevant topics, you just make it up as you go along.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:11 pmI think I should point out to you John S. that you have resorted to a “juvenile level yourself! Isn’t this supposed to be for good criticism’s?
July 10th, 2005 at 7:31 pmDemosthenes-
Sadly, I must confess you are correct. I most certainly have descended to a level that I cannot excuse. I just find it incredibly difficult to keep a level head when dealing with a poster such as Editors.
Back to the original point (which has long since been lost)…
I clearly think that Bush’s statements clearly do not match the facts on the ground so to speak. His notion that “with a few hard blows…they can force us to retreat” flies in the face of what the cited expert on Al Quaeda has to say and even with what Bin Laden himself has said (and does).
I would be curious if anyone can seriously object to this fact, and what premises they would be based.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:54 pmJohn S. – Your opinion of my credibility is of no interest at all.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:04 pmI think I should point out to you John S. that you have resorted to a “juvenile level yourself! Isn’t this supposed to be for good criticism’s?
Comment by Demosthenes
He said “juvenile”.
Heh, he-he he-he…
I wonder if Demostheknees is a Democrat..
Heh, he-he he-he…
July 10th, 2005 at 9:21 pmEditors:
Your opinion of my credibility is of no interest at all.
In my previous post to the readers of this forum, I asked the direct question if:
…anyone can seriously object to this fact, and what premises they would be based.
The fact being that Bush’s statements clearly do not match the facts on the ground. I am not entirely sure where your response fits into this, but I will ask you the question again…
Do you disagree that Bush’s characterization of Al Quaeda’s goals doesn’t match their stated and accepted goals (by those in the intelligence community), and on what premises do you base your disagreement?
July 10th, 2005 at 10:21 pmEditors, I think I should point out that if you don’t want your credibility called into question, then you need to make credible statements. The point John has been hammering away at (albeit often in a churlish fashion) regarding your usage of questionable statistics is a valid criticism.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:31 pmEditor-
July 10th, 2005 at 10:43 pmYou really are just making it worse for yourself. And since you brought up the question, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am however, an American and what I call a National-Liberal. If you don’t know what that means, then perhaps I can later elaborate on it. My name holds the key to part of my beliefs, if you know who he is, maybe you’ll understand what it means more, if not…remain in ignorance then!
You mean this Demosthenes?
Demosthenes (384 BC – 322 BC) is generally considered the greatest of the Attic orators, and thus the greatest of all Ancient Greek orators.
Demosthenes’s speaking style was relatively straightforward and generally without rhetorical flair.
And of whom Plutarch said:
I think there can hardly be found two other orators [Cicero being the other], who, from small and obscure beginnings, became so great and mighty; who both contested with kings and tyrants; both lost their daughters, were driven out of their country, and returned with honour; who, flying from thence again, were both seized upon by their enemies, and at last ended their lives with the liberty of their countrymen.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:57 pmYou all think you have open minds, read this then, please.
Thursday’s attack in London is the latest blow struck in the war that began on Sept. 11. Its origins are easy to fathom: A minority of Muslim extremists, their numbers in the few millions, resents deeply the erosion of life in the Middle East and other Muslim areas. A globalized communications system reminds them daily how far behind a Pakistan is from India, how much better a South Korea or China is doing than Egypt, or how more humane life is in an Infidel North America or Europe than in Syria or Algeria.
Autocratic regimes, statist economies, gender apartheid, corruption, the absence of a free press  all that and more retard economic growth from the Gulf to Morocco. In response, theocratic regimes like the Taliban and the Iranian mullocracy blame the West for their own self-inflicted misery and inadequacies. But more often, clever dictators such as a Baathist Saddam, the Saudi Royal family, an Egyptian kleptocracy, or the Pakistani military regime allow Islamicists some rein, if not covert support, to deflect blame from their own failures onto the United States and the “Jews.”
A shamed Islamic street  ill-housed, ill-fed, and ill-informed  is nourished on the mythology that a purer creed and a return to the 8th century alone can reclaim past glories of the caliphate, and stop the decadent intrusion of Western consumerism and popular culture.
So when terrorists strike in London  or Bali, New York or Madrid  they operate on a variety of assumptions. Middle Eastern governments may publicly deplore their methods, but privately sigh relief that al-Qaeda agents are still not yet after their own heads. Islamicist ganglia go deep into the central nervous system of the Pakistani intelligence service, not to mention the House of Saud.
Likewise, the Muslim public in the Middle East may decry terror, but privately often gets satisfaction when Westerners too are humbled. Their schadenfraude is cultivated by the old anti-Semitism  they can always say the Jews or Israel caused 9/11 or the London bombing  as well as by a deep shame over their own attraction toward Western affluence and consumerism. So we see the eerie spectacle after a 9/11 or 7/7 of imams assuring us that “Islam does not condone such things,” even as bin Laden T-shirts and copies of Mein Kampf sell like hot-cakes on the Arab Street.
A third critical assumption is the deniability of culpability: only al Qaeda or its Mcfranchises in Europe are ever deemed responsible for something like Madrid or London. Apparently, such groups never visit the Pakistani border areas, never take a dime from Saudi princes, never travel through Syria on their way to this or that terrorist camp. And thus no terror-abetting nation ever faces any real accounting. That the attacks are periodic rather than daily, and that most of the world’s oil reserves are in the Middle East make it easier for Westerners to live with the bloodshed rather than issue real ultimatums.
Fourth, and most important, the terrorists and their supporters understand that in a strange way the West is not only split, but also increasingly illiberal as well. It has lost confidence in its old commitment to rationalism, free speech and empiricism, and now embraces the deductive near-religious doctrines of moral equivalence and utopian pacifism. Al Qaeda’s supporters will say that Thursday’s victims were killed because of Afghanistan or Iraq. Westerners will duly repeat the dull refrain that “Bush lied, thousands died” in their guilt-ridden search for something we did to cause this.
And so, rather than focus our attention on the madrassas and the mosques that preach hatred, we will strive to learn more about Islamic culture, as if our own insensitivity were the true culprit. Our grandfathers could despise Bushido  Japan’s warrior cult  without worrying whether they were being unfair to Buddhists; we of less conviction and even less courage, cannot do likewise.
In short, we now know what to expect from the London bombings and the others to follow. There will be no effort to punish the states that subsidize al Qaeda. Critics will cling to the myth that the British got what they had coming. The primary obsession of many Westerners will be to extend sensitivity to Islam, not the victims of those who kill in its name. And all will be consoled that just a few dozen were harvested this time.
What a strange way to fight a war.
July 11, 2005
July 11th, 2005 at 1:16 amHow to Lose a War
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Post
©2005 Victor Davis Hanson
Fake:
A lovely essay written by Mr. Hanson you have posted there, full of scores of intersting points – some good, some bad.
Pardon me for asking the obvious question, but what exactly does this have to do with Bush misunderstanding/misstating the motives of Al-Quaeda?
After all, that is the topic of this forum.
The moment Thinnk Progress posts something about “sensitivity to Islam” or about the moral vicissitudes of the war on terror, then I would be happy to dissect the tenets raised by your article.
Until then, please try and stick to the topic at hand.
Do you disagree that Bush’s characterization of Al Quaeda’s goals don’t match their stated and accepted goals (by those in the intelligence community), and if so, on what premises do you base your disagreement?
July 11th, 2005 at 1:58 amLOL! FBA cites Victor David Hanson! You are an incredibly incompetent mental midget who stands on the shoulders of incredibly incompetent hacks of equally diminuitive stature. There is a reason these guys aren’t on the team. They are just cheerleaders, like Chimpy.
One Eliot Cohen trumps an entire Nosexinthechampagne Room Only, Weakly Stankhard and NewsHacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070802303_pf.html
A Hawk Questions Himself as His Son Goes to War
By Eliot A. Cohen
Post
Sunday, July 10, 2005; B01
War forces us, or should force us, to ask hard questions of ourselves. As a military historian, a commentator on current events and the father of a young Army officer, these are mine.
You supported the Iraq war when it was launched in 2003. If you had known then what you know now, would you still have been in favor of it?
As I watched President Bush give his speech at Fort Bragg to rally support for the war the other week, I contemplated this question from a different vantage than my usual professorial perch. Our oldest son now dresses like the impassive soldiers who served as stage props for that event; he too wears crossed rifles, jump wings and a Ranger tab. Before long he will fight in the war that I advocated, and that the president was defending.
So it is not an academic matter when I say that what I took to be the basic rationale for the war still strikes me as sound. Iraq was a policy problem that we could evade in words but not escape in reality. But what I did not know then that I do know now is just how incompetent we would be at carrying out that task. And that’s what prevents me from answering this question with an unhesitating yes.
The Bush administration did itself a disservice by resting much of its case for war on Iraq’s actual possession of weapons of mass destruction. The true arguments for war reached deeper than that. Long before 2003, weapons inspections in Iraq had broken down, and sanctions, thanks to countries like Russia, China and France, were failing. The regime’s character and ambitions, including its desire to resume suspended weapons programs, had not changed. In the meanwhile, the policy of isolation had brought suffering to the Iraqi people and had not stabilized the Gulf. Read Osama bin Laden’s fatwas in the late 1990s and see how the massive American presence in Saudi Arabia — a presence born of the need to keep Saddam Hussein in his cage — fed the outrage of the jihadis with whom we are in a war that will last a generation or more.
More than this: Decades of American policy had hoped to achieve stability in the Middle East by relying on accommodating thugs and kleptocrats to maintain order. That policy, too, had failed; it was the well-educated children of our client regimes who leveled the Twin Towers, after all.
The administration was and is right in thinking that the overthrow of Saddam’s regime could change the pattern of Middle Eastern politics in ways that, by favoring the cause of decent government and basic freedoms, would favor our interests as well. Iraq will not become Switzerland, a progressive and prosperous social democracy, for generations, if ever. But it can become a state that makes room for the various confessions and communities that constitute it, that has reasonably open and free politics, and that chooses a path to a future that could inspire other changes in the Arab Middle East. I still think something like that will happen. The administration believed that the invasion of Iraq would jolt and transform a region bewitched by the malignant dreams that my colleague Fouad Ajami has described so well — the dark fantasies of Baathists, ultra-nationalists and religious fanatics. And indeed, in the aftermath of the Iraq war the cracks have begun to show — in Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, and even in Syria and Saudi Arabia.
But a pundit should not recommend a policy without adequate regard for the ability of those in charge to execute it, and here I stumbled. I could not imagine, for example, that the civilian and military high command would treat “Phase IV” — the post-combat period that has killed far more Americans than the “real” war — as of secondary importance to the planning of Gen. Tommy Franks’s blitzkrieg. I never dreamed that Ambassador Paul Bremer and Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the two top civilian and military leaders early in the occupation of Iraq — brave, honorable and committed though they were — would be so unsuited for their tasks, and that they would serve their full length of duty nonetheless. I did not expect that we would begin the occupation with cockamamie schemes of creating an immobile Iraqi army to defend the country’s borders rather than maintain internal order, or that the under-planned, under-prepared and in some respects mis-manned Coalition Provisional Authority would seek to rebuild Iraq with big construction contracts awarded under federal acquisition regulations, rather than with small grants aimed at getting angry, bewildered young Iraqi men off the streets and into jobs.
I did not know, but I might have guessed.
You are a military historian; what does the history of war have to tell us about the future of Iraq?
History provides perspective and context, not lessons. The failures and squandered opportunities of that first year in Iraq do not look that different from some of the institutional stupidities we saw in Vietnam. What is different here is how quickly — relatively speaking — the United States changed its course. It took five years before we became serious about training our Vietnamese allies to take our place. It has taken about a year to get serious about training Iraqis.
The political side of insurgency, which is the side that counts most, never really came to the fore in Vietnam, but it has in Iraq. For the presidents who got us into Vietnam, and for that matter out of it, the war was a distraction from other, more important priorities. For this president, the war is the defining decision of his tenure, and he knows it. Whatever his faults may be, a lack of determination is not one of them. And in war, character — and above all persistence — counts for a very great deal.
That’s particularly true here because counterinsurgency is inherently a long, long business. Conceivably, the Iraqi insurgency could collapse in a year or so, but that would be highly unusual. More likely Iraq will suffer from chronic violence, which need not prevent the country as a whole from progressing. If the insurgencies in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka and Kashmir continue, what reason do we have to expect this one to end so soon? Most insurgencies do, however, fail. Moreover, most insurgencies consist of a collection of guerrilla microclimates in which local conditions — charismatic leaders (or their absence), ethnographic peculiarities, concrete grievances — determine how much violence will occur and with what effect.
This is an unusually invertebrate insurgency, without a central organization or ideology, a coherent set of objectives or a common positive purpose. The FLN in 5lgeria or the Viet Cong were far more cohesive and directed. The decentralized ad hoc nature of the insurgency makes it harder to figure out, but also less likely to succeed; there is a reason why it is well-organized and disciplined guerrillas who eventually occupy presidential palaces. And with all of its errors and follies, the United States remains an extraordinarily wealthy and formidable foe. By any historical standard, our resources are immense, our technology fabulous, the quality of our people on the ground superb. We have far more power than the Britain of the 19th century or the America of the 1960s. That fact may invite hubris, but it also provides solace.
None of this predetermines the outcome, of course, or foretells the consequences of a muddled success or a blurred failure in Iraq. Historians have the comfort of knowing how past wars played out. But short of clairvoyance, no one can forecast the outcome and the second- or third-order effects of events as they unfold. Five or even 10 years from now, we still may not be able to judge our Iraq venture in a definitive way. Unfortunately, that philosophical detachment is cold consolation in the here and now, as young men and women go off to war.
Your son is an infantry officer, shipping out soon for Iraq. How do you feel about that?
Pride, of course — great pride. And fear. And an occasional burning in the gut, a flare of anger at empty pieties and lame excuses, at flip answers and a lack of urgency, at a failure to hold those at the top to the standards of accountability that the military system rightly imposes on subalterns.
It is a flicker of rage that two years into an insurgency, we still expose our troops in Humvees to the blasts of roadside bombs — knowing that even the armored version of that humble successor to the Jeep is simply not designed for warfare along guerrilla-infested highways, while, at the same time, knowing that plenty of countries manufacture armored cars that are. It is disbelief at a manpower system that, following its prewar routines, ships soldiers off to war for a year or 15 months, giving them two weeks of leave at the end, when our British comrades, more experienced in these matters and wiser in pacing themselves, ship troops out for half that time, and give them an extra month on top of their regular leave after an operational deployment.
It is the sick feeling that churned inside me at least 18 months ago, when a glib and upbeat Pentagon bureaucrat assured me that the opposition in Iraq consisted of “5,000 bitter-enders and criminals,” even after we had killed at least that many. It flames up when hearing about the veteran who in theory has a year between Iraq rotations, but in fact, because he transferred between units after returning from one tour, will go back to Iraq half a year later, and who, because of “stop-loss orders” involuntarily extending active duty tours, will find himself in combat nine months after his enlistment runs out. And all this because after 9/11, when so many Americans asked for nothing but an opportunity to serve, we did not expand our Army and Marine Corps when we could, even though we knew we would need more troops.
A variety of emotions wash over me as I reflect on our Iraq war: Disbelief at the length of time it took to call an insurgency by its name. Alarm at our continuing failure to promote at wartime speed the colonels and generals who have a talent for fighting it, while also failing to sweep aside those who do not. Incredulity at seeing decorations pinned on the chests and promotions on the shoulders of senior leaders — both civilians and military — who had the helm when things went badly wrong. Disdain for the general who thinks Job One is simply whacking the bad guys and who, ever conscious of public relations, cannot admit that American soldiers have tortured prisoners or, in panic, killed innocent civilians. Contempt for the ghoulish glee of some who think they were right in opposing the war, and for the blithe disregard of the bungles by some who think they were right in favoring it. A desire — barely controlled — to slap the highly educated fool who, having no soldier friends or family, once explained to me that mistakes happen in all wars, and that the casualties are not really all that high and that I really shouldn’t get exercised about them.
There is a lot of talk these days about shaky public support for the war. That is not really the issue. Nor should cheerleading, as opposed to truth-telling, be our leaders’ chief concern. If we fail in Iraq — and I don’t think we will — it won’t be because the American people lack heart, but because leaders and institutions have failed. Rather than fretting about support at home, let them show themselves dedicated to waging and winning a strange kind of war and describing it as it is, candidly and in detail. Then the American people will give them all the support they need. The scholar in me is not surprised when our leaders blunder, although the pundit in me is dismayed when they do. What the father in me expects from our leaders is, simply, the truth — an end to happy talk and denials of error, and a seriousness equal to that of the men and women our country sends into the fight.
You’ve come to cheer at the big game, your team admits you’ve lost all your marbles. Now go home, or we will taunt you mercilessly.
July 11th, 2005 at 5:02 am“As always, we of the reality-based community appreciate TP’s vigilant quest to shed light in the places of darkness,�
Gee nice words. But where are your solutions? All I see on this site is whining, pissing and moaning and criticism of the current administration. You have no agenda and that is why the
people of this country are fed up with you on election day. Your elitist attitudes will continue to assure the conservatives control the White House, Senate, Congress and absolutely the Supreme Court(at least another 10 years). Keep up the good work.
Comment by Karl Rove
Eventually it will sink in, even into your thick, but empty skull. YOU are the problem. The solution is to remove you from office, and thereby control.
July 11th, 2005 at 5:46 amIs it true that Clinton’s presidency was a big fat zero?
American casualties in Kosovo under Clinton
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Whitewater:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Travel Office allegations:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with alleged abuse of FBI files:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/of convicted in connection with Lewinsky matter:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel
investigation of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel
investigation of Labor Secretary Alexis Herman:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel
investigation of Americorps director Eli Siegal:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the
Independent Counsel investigation of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown:
0 (Investigation abandoned upon Brown’s death in nation’s service)
Clinton Administration officials convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of
Agriculture Secretary Michael Espy:
0 (Espy acquitted of all charges. Judge sharply rebukes Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz for
bringing case in the first place.)
I guess it was.
July 11th, 2005 at 7:33 amWith Bushie’s logic, “we’ll take the fight to the terrorists”, that means we have to attack London.
That is where they are now, no?
July 11th, 2005 at 10:28 am#295
“Hey! Buttbot! LTNS!
GoD! I’m GooD!
Comment by GoD  July 10, 2005 @ 2:22 pm”
A punk-ass effort from a cold turd who for some reason thinks he’s hot shit. If this is any indication of the levels of your capabilities in general, I’ll wager your log-cabin boyfriend is constantly unsatisified. Try again, you coprophagic little DoGGie.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:40 amI see that some people feel that childish behavior is among us here.
I’d love to add to that if I may and will not apologize for it.
Hey, stupid Republicans, get to Iraq you sissy’s!
July 11th, 2005 at 12:10 pmAwww, someone sounds angry. Did you pick up some rough trade for a threesome, wake up and find your boyfriend gone and crap in your purse?
July 11th, 2005 at 12:10 pm#295
“Hey! Buttbot! LTNS!
GoD! I’m GooD!
Comment by GoD  July 10, 2005 @ 2:22 pm�
A punk-ass effort from a cold turd who for some reason thinks he’s hot shit. If this is any indication of the levels of your capabilities in general, I’ll wager your log-cabin boyfriend is constantly unsatisified. Try again, you coprophagic little DoGGie.
Goodness! We can tell from his homophobic remarks that he is not in favor of gay marriage, but what closeted or uncloseted Log Cabin Republican ever is. It sounds to me like he knows more about the gay lifestyle than any mere breeder should acknowledge without setting off everyone’s gaydar. It could just be that he spends too much time playing Nintendo.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:27 pm#337
“Goodness! We can tell from his homophobic remarks that he is not in favor of gay marriage…”
Wrong! I personally support full and equal rights for gays and I think it’s a goddamn shame that we live in a country where so many of our citizens are complicit in denying what are obvious and basic societal human rights to a portion of the populace because of a bunch of religious and political pinheads tell them to. Sadly, you have read what was nothing more than a simple insult to a yobbo and misinterpreted it as ideology. By the way Urinal, you have neglected to tell us if you are a wall-mounted unit or a console floor model; inquiring minds wanna be amused.
As it happens, I myself am not gay as your closeted/uncloseted log cabin comment suggests; however the gay community can certainly rely on my help and enthusiastic support in their attempts to enlighten the religious-right troglodytes who are currently having their day in the sun. Homophobic? Me? Yer battin’ 0-fer-2, honeydew.
As to your suggesting that I’m a republican, let me offer a couple of counter-suggestions:
1. Read my comments more carefully next time if you wish to come to the correct conclusion as to their meaning.
2. Bugger yourself with a Miracle-Gro leek (or is this likely to cause you to once again think I am homophobic? Time will tell…).
July 11th, 2005 at 1:42 pmSODOPH is a sick man, transgendered or otherwise.
July 11th, 2005 at 2:35 pmWHY FREAKIN BUSH WANTS WAR BECAUSE HE LIKE TO MURDER THESE MUSLIM (WHICH HE HATE THEM) BECAUSE HE HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF MUSLIM, SO BUSH WALK AWAY FOR BEING MURDEROUS TO THESE PEOPLE FROM IRAQ IN 1990 UNTIL NOW, BUSH WOULD NOT GOING TO STOP THE VIOLENCE BUT HE WOULD GET MORE MUDEROUS AND MUDEROUS. REMEMBER HE TOLD SOMEONE TO SHUT THE FU&* UP ABOUT 911 AND IF SOMEONE SPEAK OUT HE WOULD GET SOMEONE COME OUT AND KILL THE PERSON FOR TELLING THIS. SEE THE POINT THAT IS VIOLENT AGAINST HIS/HER WILL. I WANT IMPEACH BUSH WHICH I CANT STAND HIS SHIT GOING ON ALL THE TIME AND LIED TOO MANY THINGS.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:21 amLMAO look at this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_objectid=15725589%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=u%2ds%2d%2dtells%2dtroops%2dto%2dstay%2dout%2dof%2dlondon%2dafter%2dbombs-name_page.html
July 12th, 2005 at 3:11 amCan you wondering why.
I must say, this discussion went from bad to worse. Unless I missed the point entirely and it really is just to make fun of everyone else and call them names? All of our problems aren’t just from Republicans, they also come from the Democrats. We aren’t having good political dialogue going on in this country. We avoid the pertinent questions, and focus on the petty culture war. Why can’t we have a mature discussion about the issues that will shape our country and make us better off in this world? Is it any wonder that during the New Deal Era, we had more open cooperation in this country, the inequality gap wasn’t as bad and our politicians tried to bring about real solutions? Why are we, the American majority letting a minority, the politicians, destroy New Deal legislation, and create an inequality greater than it’s ever been? But then again, we squabble among ourselves, and leave them to do what they want. I love America, and I want it to be good and strong and continue to be a light to other Nations, so let’s be that light! Set aside your petty differences and let us join together to build a better America for our children and grand children!
July 12th, 2005 at 3:52 pm[...] Think Progress ” Bush Demonstrates Misunderstanding of Terrorist Threat … _ You recall Bush _ s words, when he said the major operations are over, … The statement said it supported U.S. President George W. … [...]
October 11th, 2006 at 1:11 amLife Covarage…
exits bordering choirs tolls journeyman Liberia quantification collateral Life Covarage http://www.tucsonwildlife.org/# …
January 16th, 2007 at 2:37 amCash Advance Loans
If someone you know is simple on dollar just effortlessly sign up for an online cash advance loan that is terrific, brainless, and rapid today!
March 14th, 2008 at 10:52 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 12:22 amFreddie
Did you get this off MSN?
March 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pmEllie
I just wanted to tell you that your site is really awesome and is of a fantastic quality. The content is great and I will be returning.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 amcycle tours europe
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pmKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 10:23 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pmJessie
Thanks for the info. By the way, I am a big fan of your site. Keep up the great work.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:49 amTeen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 7:24 pmFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 10:28 amChubby Grannies Chubby Blonde Mature Chubby Mature Thumbs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 12th, 2008 at 10:53 amAdvance Angeles Cash Los
It is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me -
April 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pmFree Granny Porn Lesbian Milfs Free Mom And Son Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pmbad breath product giant
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but it still ok Hm.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:16 amJournalism Wall Street Journal Viewpoint Media Player
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 4th, 2008 at 10:58 amThomas
I can’t believe I missed this! I’m going to have to do some more reading me thinks.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pmJack
It is a "network of networks" that consists of millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks,
June 15th, 2008 at 4:09 amAlice
Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as
June 20th, 2008 at 12:11 amGames Play Pogo Games Play Basketball Games
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 20th, 2008 at 5:35 amalesse
alesse withdrawal
June 30th, 2008 at 9:07 pmjohnny cash leave your guns at home
How do you come up with so much material to blog with?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:10 amaleve
aleve recall
July 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pmprilosec
prevacid better than prilosec
July 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pmterms conditions beverage
I have seen many sites before and most of them do not look this good. I cannot wait to let my friends know about this site. Thanks for the excellent content Free Mp3 Download.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 amclaritin
allegra identical claritin d
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pmlasix
lasix vs demadex
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 pmMoney Magazine New Construction Associated Press
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 9th, 2008 at 6:22 amAuto Trader Honda Generators Car Parts
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 10th, 2008 at 3:34 pmlevaquin
levaquin 500mg levofloxacin
July 15th, 2008 at 10:30 pmPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
July 17th, 2008 at 6:52 amvalium
buy valium no prescription
July 18th, 2008 at 11:27 amDog Obedience Training
Where are your related posts?
July 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pmWebpage Templates Design Your Own Kitchen Kitchen Island Design
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 pmCash Loans
Secure loan program for cash advances online nationwide.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:41 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
July 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pmWeather Forecast Air Supply Cloud
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
August 1st, 2008 at 10:59 ambridge bidding
It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools.) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack feature to insert
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm